Hopkinson v. Kennedy

114 N.E. 204, 225 Mass. 231, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1209
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 114 N.E. 204 (Hopkinson v. Kennedy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hopkinson v. Kennedy, 114 N.E. 204, 225 Mass. 231, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1209 (Mass. 1916).

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an action of contract for use and occupation of premises owned by the plaintiffs. The view of the record most favorable to the defendant is that there was conflicting evidence whether the defendant had given notice to end the tenancy, whether the plaintiffs had waived the statutory notice of intention to terminate the tenancy by the defendant, and whether the plaintiffs had accepted a surrender of the premises and agreed not to hold the defendant responsible for more rent. All these issues of fact were decided against the defendant. They were pure questions of fact. The requests for rulings all were denied rightly on the ground that they were not applicable to the facts found. No question of law is presented'by the appeal.

This appeal is within the terms of R. L. c. 156, § 13. The order of the Appellate Division dismissing the report is affirmed and, from the time when the appeal was taken, double costs are awarded against the defendant and interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on the amount found due for debt.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Procacci Commercial Realty v. DHRS
690 So. 2d 603 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Morrone v. STATE FARM FIRE & CAS. INS.
664 So. 2d 972 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Marrone v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance
655 So. 2d 146 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Brahmbhatt v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
652 So. 2d 1224 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Hill v. Liberty Motor & Engineering Corp.
45 A.2d 467 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1946)
Gates Rubber Co. v. Industrial Commission
150 P.2d 301 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1944)
Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co. v. Davison
1942 OK 413 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1942)
Horn v. Broadway Garage
1940 OK 81 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Myott v. Vermont Plywood, Inc.
2 A.2d 204 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1938)
Treat v. State Ex Rel. Mitton
163 So. 883 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Anderson & Kerr v. State Industrial Com.
1932 OK 6 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Conklin v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
41 S.W.2d 608 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1931)
Cawley v. American Railway Express Co.
120 A. 108 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 N.E. 204, 225 Mass. 231, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkinson-v-kennedy-mass-1916.